So now hockey is a linear formula and a system of random physical interactions like a pinball machine.

No

Quote:

If left to the properties of these laws given time Gomez will eventually become Ovechkin and vice versa.

No

Quote:

Skill is involved at every touchpoint between the players themselves and the puck .

Up to a point sure.

Quote:

It can't be broken down to show that certain things are controllable and certain things are always and only subject to luck, chance, or laws of probability.

Why can't it? 'cause you say so?

Something that may not have been made clear enough... when we say that shooting percentage regresses toward the means on the long time, it's not some random statement of belief. We're not saying "I feel it does" or "It should regress toward the means". The ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS conclusively show that it does. That's it. It's a factual statement. Take a look at the actual numbers, and it becomes very obvious, very quickly. This is not a matter of opinion; we're way past that.

Quote:

Too much academia here shielding a reality that has been articulated by Lafleur's Guy. The team needs to find more productive player combinations at forward, as I like to say they need an upgrade at the Gomez position.

Instead of this thread, I could of also made a thread titled '' A Scott Gomez away from Winning the Cup? ''

There are many ways to go about the argument of being a piece or two away from contention.

Sure. But I don't think MaxPac is the guy, do you? Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

I think if we can subtract Gomez from the equation, and find a way to replace him and his cap hit with a center that plays at least to 75-85 percent of his worth, we'd be pretty close to the level of Boston (and since we tend to match-up well, I wouldn't be scared facing them at that point)...

Especially with an extra year of experience for Subban and Price. Yes, they're not superstars yet, but they're looking like real deals.

Boston is pretty thin up front (since there's no clear F superstar on their team)... the only difference is that they don't have a 7.3 million cap sucker draining them out of contention. they have Krejci, a 2nd rounder... whom I think falls short of Superstar / franchise status, but definitely productive top 6.

Most folks will be shocked if Boston wins this year and a lot of people in this forum are saying that they'd be the weakest team ever to win a cup. But even they had a great year this season.

So again, why do you want to compare us to the weakest teams to win? Why not try to build what an average cup winning team has instead? And sorry, but getting a center who plays 75 percent of what Gomez does isn't going to put us over either.

With our lack of size and grit, we'd at the very least need a superstar forward to make us true contenders. If that ever happened then maybe we can talk about this kind of stuff. But MaxPac isn't Steven Stamkos. And he's nowhere near the difference maker that this club needs to vault it into the same category as the top contending clubs. Yes, we can beat any given team in a 7 game series and yes we almost beat Boston. But for us to win Price has to be Ken Dryden and while we can hope for this we shouldn't expect it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Those are not "fluke years".

We've been offesively challenged for over a decade. One year sticks out like a sore thumb. Yeah, it's a fluke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

High and lows are just a common occurence of cycles in complex systems. That's what happens when you mix 600+ individuals into 30 groups and make them compete against each other in a pinball sport (high fluctuations) like hockey. It's 600+ individuals making thousands of decisions on and off the ice, events in their lives, that affect their play, played over thousands of games.

Sure, there are highs and lows. But for most teams they exist within a range. And our range has consistently been in the lower half or 3rd of the league for goals for. And it's been that way because our players haven't been good enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Hockey players aren't little robots, they aren't some little AI bots from a video game that respond game after game to their established 'overall'.

Really? Wow. Thanks for that awesome point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

Hockey isn't like basketball either, where the number of players makes the necessity for an exceptional player all that much more desirable, whereas hockey is more a group sport, where the team is only as good as it's weakest link, not it's strongest one.

Strange how cup winning teams usually have HOF players on it in their prime. How do you explain this because history goes completely against what you're saying here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

His argument has not be refuted, only sidelined. There are a lot more ways to be a winning team without having a high +/- differential, and a static group of 20 will without a doubt bring different results year in and year out, depending on the system, the yeild will be greater or thinner, because the more variables there are, the more complex the system becomes, and the more unpredictable it becomes, the more the yeild can change.

He was trying to say that scoring more than the other guy is what matters. And the bottom line is that we're nowhere near what contending clubs are in terms of differential. And it's not just this season. So you can argue that it's just one year and there are highs and lows all you want, the bottom line is that we've consistently not performed at the level of contenders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozymandias

The best example of this is that predicting a winner in basketball is a lot easier than hockey, because they have 1/3 the variables in the player factor, compared to hockey.

Point is, no matter what paradigm of systematic approach you force upon people here, won't change the fact that you're only creating that paradigm in a tightly-closed logical loop that discounts a big part of reality, which is the common problem here and everywhere this type of thing is discussed.

No matter what paradigm you're trying to impose, the present (part) lineup has yeilded a lot more than expected while being depleted more than expected, and as such, discounting it's success is a bad approach, and also not being able to quantify the added variables properly as we've never witnessed some of the probable coming events (full season of Markov + Subban, first full season for Pac) added to the present group, which if just added to the base should already change the yeild considerably.

What has become a fluke is winning the cup. For any team, even Detroit. The difference between team #1 and team #20 is much more smaller than it was just 10 years ago (even 5 years ago), and even more so than 20 years ago. There's also the added variable of absorbing more and more talent into the same container (30 teams) for a long span, this has created a league filled with talent EVERYWHERE which makes the 600+ player group even more unpredictable in the outcomes.

Winning a cup has become a fluke? Really?

Strange how Detroit, Colorado, New Jersey, Pittsburgh and Chicago have all gone on to win as expected. The only two true flukes that I can think of were TB and Carolina (immediately before and after the lockout) both of whom had great seasons and career years from their top players.

Somebody mentioned above that an 8th place team is going to win someday. I agree, it will happen for sure. It has to. But the vast majority of times those cup winners are going to be true contenders and favourites. The last three were no suprise and if Vancouver wins tonight it won't be a surprise either.

As for Boston winning, I will personally be shocked. Maybe it's because Thomas has never really played well against us or maybe it's because I just never believed in the Bruins. But the B's have had an all-time great season from Thomas and a Norris winning season from their future HOF defenseman. And THAT constitutes a weak cup team. Most cup winners have two, three or four (sometimes even more) HOF players on it. It's not a fluke that those clubs win cups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Those numbers say nothing of the sort. They say the Habs are like all teams where it comes to shooting percentage: average. With variations year over year. Just like Boston. Or San Jose.

How do you explain how Gomez's shooting percentage is so consistently low then? You don't think the guys shooting the puck has anything to do with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Let's play a little game to illustrate. Which, of the following two teams, do you believe has had the best 5-on-5 finishers over the last four years:

Toronto Maple Leafs
Detroit Red Wings

Remember three things: Corsi refers to five-on-five play (scoring leaders typically rack up a large portion of their points on the power play) and Corsi is about outscoring more than it is about offense (outscoring is what matters in hockey, not just offense), and for individual players Corsi is heavily dependent on context (players who play softer opposition or often start in the offensive zone will get higher Corsi without being better). Icetime matters as well. You can't expect to take a list of Corsi leaders and have it match the list of top scorers; that's not what Corsi represents at all.

Then I"m not sure what value Corsi brings to any kind of analysis here. If the players with the best Corsi numbers aren't the best players in the game, then the stat is interesting but not indicative of how good a player or team is.

If say, Brett Hull or Mike Bossy's Corsi numbers suck... I really don't care. The puck is on the guy's stick for half a second and then it's in the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Because puck possession is a sustainable skill (unlike shooting percentage), and because the Habs loaded up on strong 5-on-5 possession players in 2009 and has had their players seriously underperform their results on other teams. I made a little study and everyone who joined the Habs saw their puck possession metrics go down when they joined the club, and everyone who left saw them go up, regardless if they were coming from strong clubs like Detroit, decent ones like the Rangers, or poor ones.

This year, however everyone played pretty much to their "average" level of historical performance. Basically, the "black hole" that joining the Habs represented is gone. Basically, the Habs' player are now playing at the level they always have, whereas last year was an anomaly for them individually.

I've complained a lot about Martin in the past, but this year he's achieved what I thought/hoped he would. I expected it last year, but maybe there was a learning curve.

This club has been inconsistent for years. You say it's a sustainable skill... we'll see about that. I agree we were better this year but I'm not convinced that this club will continue down that path next year.

Moreover, we've already seen that puck possession isn't the be all and end all. That's why Scott Gomez isn't considered a great player in this league. His corsi numbers may be stellar but he doesn't produce to a great level.

Again, you're trying to 'Sabremetrictize' (it's a word look it up) the game of hockey and it doesn't work that way. If it did, then Gomez would be a 100 point player and he's not. Having the puck is a good thing but it doesn't always translate to the results that you're claiming it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

No it wasn't. It was a massive difference. It wasn't subtle. You're merely willfully ignoring it.

The corsi number may have been a massive difference but the results were the same. You are the one ignoring the results. The scoring doesn't match up with your stats so you just say it's a fluke or luck.

It's not a fluke and it's not luck. It's a consistent pattern that we've followed for years. If it were one season that stuck out like a sore thumb the way 2008 did I'd agree with you. But every year we can't seem to bury chances that are right on the doorstep of the opposition's goal. Maybe other club's have size up front and can fight their way through the traffic in front. Maybe they have better finishers and 100 point players. Bottom line is that our forwards aren't good enough to contend. And until this changes, we aren't going to actually be in the hunt for a cup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

On the contrary, there was a huge difference. They fixed their long-standing problems with 5-on-5 this year. I'd say you just missed it, but you do have this tendency to just ignore whatever doesn't suit your argument.

I didn't miss it and I think you know this. I said I saw an improvement on the ice and I don't need a spreadsheet to tell me this. That said, we still can't score.

Be honest, do you think we'll be in the top half for offense next year with the roster we have? Seriously?

Seriously? the maple leafs had better 5/5 finishers than the wings over the past 4 years? That surprises me.

I don't think they had better finishers per se, but they did have better shooting percentage at even strength in each of the four years.

Yes, I cherry-picked my example, but it's meant to be illustrative: teams don't have any skill at "high shooting percentage".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost # 1

Is the black hole you speak of.. Shots on Goal? I could see that improved for sure this year...

Corsi -- the combination of shot attempts for and against, used as a proxy for puck possession. But as you can imagine, actual shots on goal closely follows shot attempts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost # 1

The aberration is our shooting %? This is why we couldnt win at times this year? (Terrible season for our snipers)

Pretty much, yes. It was especially egregious for Gomez, but remember at the start of the season when Gionta couldn't buy a goal? Montreal left a lot of goals on the table because of stuff like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost # 1

& you feel that because our trend is climbing,, So Long as we return to league average shooting %... We should see a natural incline in our overall teamplay/stats?

Yes, so long as the Habs maintain their puck possession game. If they go back to sucking like in 2009-2010, well, Price will need to keep them out of the lottery.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost # 1

CORSI I have a decent (not great) understanding of the stat... Is it goals/sog for ice time? Or puck possession

Corsi is simply the total of shots attempts (goals, saves, misses, blocks) for and against when a player/team is on the ice, expressed as plus/minus. Originally designed by the Sabres' goaltending coach, Jim Corsi, as a measure for goaltender workload, it turned out to be an excellent proxy for puck possession, and a stat that is both strongly correlated with winning and something teams can sustain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost # 1

I heard that Scotty Gomez, is much more visible on our CORSI lists.. (Esp. 2 years ago, his first season as a hab, and last season as a Ranger

Scott Gomez is a possession ace. This is why he's been consistently putting up 40 even-strength points before this year. It also helps with keeping the opposition away from the net... a significant benefit, since he usually play against pretty strong opposition.

Be honest, do you think we'll be in the top half for offense next year with the roster we have? Seriously?

Top half? I'd be honestly surprised if the Habs aren't. They'd only need to add 12 goals. They've certainly generated enough chances this year that they should've been.

You're focussing on the very superficial "results" and completely (and I'm tempted to say willfully) ignoring the process that led to the results, how the process changed, and what it means for the future. The process has a lot more predictive value than the result.

I also think you've got a skewed idea of exactly how "good" the rosters of other teams are and what constitutes, say, an "average" set of forwards, but that's a common malady.

I also think you need to do some research on hockey Sabremetrics rather than dismiss it out of hand because you don't think the game works that way. Right now you're sounding like a baseball guy circa 1970.

The Habs of previous years were utterly terribad 5-on-5. They were not this year. The fluke part is that this didn't translate into goals for.

Top half? I'd be honestly surprised if the Habs aren't. They'd only need to add 12 goals. They've certainly generated enough chances this year that they should've been.

And that's the problem. We've always been great at 'generating chances' but we can't finish. It's been that way forever. As for us being top half, I'll believe it when I see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

You're focussing on the very superficial "results" and completely (and I'm tempted to say willfully) ignoring the process that led to the results, how the process changed, and what it means for the future. The process has a lot more predictive value than the result.

I also think you've got a skewed idea of exactly how "good" the rosters of other teams are and what constitutes, say, an "average" set of forwards, but that's a common malady.

You focus on things like Corsi and to you it's the be all and end all. Gomez has great Corsi numbers? Geez, I guess he'll be great. Must be a fluke that he's not producing.

Sorry man, but at the end of the day you have to look beyond those obscure stats that you're using. You're doing what you're accusing me of... looking at superficial stats to justify the less than stellar results that we've been getting. And if it was just one year, again I'd say sure... maybe you're right. But that hasn't been the case. We've always had problems scoring goals.

As for other teams and what 'average constitutes'... I think you get hung up on this as well. Superstar forwards make a huge difference. I'd rather have a couple of superstar forwards and a mediocre group of forwards than a group of above average forwards. Superstars are the difference makers and they tend to elevate the play of those around them. We don't have this and it's why we don't win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

I also think you need to do some research on hockey Sabremetrics rather than dismiss it out of hand because you don't think the game works that way. Right now you're sounding like a baseball guy circa 1970.

Dude, I'm open minded enough to consider this. But nothing that you have shown me is convincing that Corsi is indicative of success. As for baseball, it is a statistical game that was made for mathematical analysis. That's why Sabremetrics was born for it. It already has tons of stats like BA, OBP and SLG. right from the get go. Hockey is a fluid game with a whole lot more non statistical variables to it. I'm not saying that it can't ever be analyzed but I am saying that there are far greater challenges to doing this and that nothing you've shown me so far indicates that there's anything out there at present time to prove otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

The Habs of previous years were utterly terribad 5-on-5. They were not this year. The fluke part is that this didn't translate into goals for.

I don't think it's a fluke. And the pattern that we've followed for years just reinforces this. Again, when the results don't match the stats that you want to look at you just dismiss the results... Sorry but there are more stats than Corsi to consider.

As for us being better 5 on 5, we were 26th in the league in this department. Sure the corsi numbers were better and I already told you I thought we looked better this season but we still sucked.

I don't think they had better finishers per se, but they did have better shooting percentage at even strength in each of the four years.

Yes, I cherry-picked my example, but it's meant to be illustrative: teams don't have any skill at "high shooting percentage".

Corsi -- the combination of shot attempts for and against, used as a proxy for puck possession. But as you can imagine, actual shots on goal closely follows shot attempts.

Pretty much, yes. It was especially egregious for Gomez, but remember at the start of the season when Gionta couldn't buy a goal? Montreal left a lot of goals on the table because of stuff like that.

Yes, so long as the Habs maintain their puck possession game. If they go back to sucking like in 2009-2010, well, Price will need to keep them out of the lottery.

Corsi is simply the total of shots attempts (goals, saves, misses, blocks) for and against when a player/team is on the ice, expressed as plus/minus. Originally designed by the Sabres' goaltending coach, Jim Corsi, as a measure for goaltender workload, it turned out to be an excellent proxy for puck possession, and a stat that is both strongly correlated with winning and something teams can sustain.

Scott Gomez is a possession ace. This is why he's been consistently putting up 40 even-strength points before this year. It also helps with keeping the opposition away from the net... a significant benefit, since he usually play against pretty strong opposition.

Thank you for the insight

I was shocked that the Leafs had a better 5/5 shooting % than Detroit... IMHO It completely validates what you are saying...

If Detroit can post lower Shooting % numbers.. There HAS to be something that explains how they are consistently contending...

Your info does make enough sense that it CAN be useful insight in to team play.

And that's the problem. We've always been great at 'generating chances' but we can't finish. It's been that way forever. As for us being top half, I'll believe it when I see it.

On the contrary: the Habs were terrible at generating chances, but were average finishers.

On another note, the Habs were top-half in goals for twice in the last five years -- 2006-2007 (15th) and 2007-2008 (2nd). Don't act like it's something beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

You focus on things like Corsi and to you it's the be all and end all. Gomez has great Corsi numbers? Geez, I guess he'll be great. Must be a fluke that he's not producing.

It pretty much is, unless the guys around him suddenly halved their finishing talent relative to last year.

He's not going to be a 90-point scorer or anything but he should be good for his usual 40 points 5-on-5 plus whatever he gets on the PP (but you trade for Gomez for his 5-on-5 game anyway).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

Sorry man, but at the end of the day you have to look beyond those obscure stats that you're using. You're doing what you're accusing me of... looking at superficial stats to justify the less than stellar results that we've been getting.

There's nothing superficial about it. On the contrary, it identified changes and trends that you haven't been aware of, and continue to be willfully ignoring.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

As for other teams and what 'average constitutes'... I think you get hung up on this as well.

I frankly think many of the most strident complaints about the Habs arise from the fact that people overestimate the talent level of the league and/or its average club.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

Superstar forwards make a huge difference. I'd rather have a couple of superstar forwards and a mediocre group of forwards than a group of above average forwards.

That's never worked too well for Atlanta or Columbus now has it.

Good teams do not rely on a couple of superstar forwards and nothing else. They may have them, but it's the strength of the overall unit that matters. The 'masonry' and depth of a club are key components of its strength.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

Superstars are the difference makers and they tend to elevate the play of those around them. We don't have this and it's why we don't win.

And now we're back on your we-need-superstars horse. Of course, with you everything is about that -- next you'll probably demand we trade the entire roster for your precious top-5 picks. Hockey, though, doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

Dude, I'm open minded enough to consider this. But nothing that you have shown me is convincing that Corsi is indicative of success. As for baseball, it is a statistical game that was made for mathematical analysis. That's why Sabremetrics was born for it. It already has tons of stats like BA, OBP and SLG. right from the get go. Hockey is a fluid game with a whole lot more non statistical variables to it. I'm not saying that it can't ever be analyzed but I am saying that there are far greater challenges to doing this and that nothing you've shown me so far indicates that there's anything out there at present time to prove otherwise.

Naturally, there are more factors to consider on hockey. It's a lot more luck-driven and context-driven than baseball. But that doesn't imply that you need to throw out what's there. Besides, like all stats, these are at their best when dealing with extremes, and how they are likely to regress to the mean, rather than trying to distinguish small differences between teams in the muddle of "average".

Dallas is a beautiful example, because it got to the top of the Western conference riding the percentages, but with bad puck possession metrics. Their fall was swifter than anticipated, but it was predictable. Likewise Colorado this year relative to last.

The stats aren't as apt to make precise comparisons as baseball's, but when something sticks out like a sore thumb (and it happens in hockey more than in baseball) they will show it. And Montreal's shooting percentage sticks out like a sore thumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy

As for us being better 5 on 5, we were 26th in the league in this department. Sure the corsi numbers were better and I already told you I thought we looked better this season but we still sucked.

Montreal was one of the better clubs in the league at driving the play and generating chances at even-strength. That was NOT the case in the past. And in the long term that's the most sustainable way to get goals; 'shooting percentage' skill, at the team level, is a chimera.

If Detroit can post lower Shooting % numbers.. There HAS to be something that explains how they are consistently contending...

Detroit had terrible 5-on-5 shooting percentage last year (close to as bad as Montreal's was this year) and were perfectly average this year. They don't have any special finishing skill; their continual excellence is built on puck possession.

All the teams that continually contend have strong puck possession numbers. None of them have consistently high shooting percentages (and no other team does either).

I was shocked that the Leafs had a better 5/5 shooting % than Detroit... IMHO It completely validates what you are saying...

If Detroit can post lower Shooting % numbers.. There HAS to be something that explains how they are consistently contending...

Your info does make enough sense that it CAN be useful insight in to team play.

Sure it can be somewhat useful... but again, it's not the be all and end all. And that's how Mathman seems to be presenting it.

Detroit had 50 more goals than we did. Shooting percentage doesn't mean jack if you aren't taking as many shots as the other team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

On the contrary: the Habs were terrible at generating chances, but were average finishers.

On another note, the Habs were top-half in goals for twice in the last five years -- 2006-2007 (15th) and 2007-2008 (2nd). Don't act like it's something beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

We've already covered 2008 and 15th? Come on dude. What about the other 15 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

It pretty much is, unless the guys around him suddenly halved their finishing talent relative to last year.

He's not going to be a 90-point scorer or anything but he should be good for his usual 40 points 5-on-5 plus whatever he gets on the PP (but you trade for Gomez for his 5-on-5 game anyway).

Sorry, but I disagree. Gomez sucked this year. And it's not just that he was unlucky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

There's nothing superficial about it. On the contrary, it identified changes and trends that you haven't been aware of, and continue to be willfully ignoring.

I already told you that I saw an improvement and said so way back when the season was young. You on the other hand are ignoring the fact that we still didn't score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

I frankly think many of the most strident complaints about the Habs arise from the fact that people overestimate the talent level of the league and/or its average club.

That's never worked too well for Atlanta or Columbus now has it.

Neither club had the other pieces necessary. And Atlanta had the unfortunate situation of their best player killling a teammate very early into his career and forcing a trade for a guy who didn't want to be there. That tends to mess things up.

And the formula certainly worked for a lot of cup winners btw. Most have had an elite forward (if not more than one) in their lineup.

The odd club didn't have this but again... why do you want to follow the path of the few instead of the path of the many? Those have had success usually have those kinds of players in their lineup. We don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Good teams do not rely on a couple of superstar forwards and nothing else. They may have them, but it's the strength of the overall unit that matters. The 'masonry' and depth of a club are key components of its strength.

I never said they did. Don't be silly.

I said that as far as FORWARDS go, cup winning teams usually have at least one if not more than one guy who's a top scorer in the league or a HOF player in his prime. Again... we don't have this.

And if you don't have this, you'd better have one of the best goalies of all time on your roster and some Norris winners to back you up. You also better be a heck of a lot better than 23rd in scoring and 26th in 5 on 5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

And now we're back on your we-need-superstars horse. Of course, with you everything is about that -- next you'll probably demand we trade the entire roster for your precious top-5 picks. Hockey, though, doesn't work that way.

Name the clubs that have won without superstars. It rarely happens if ever. Only Carolina comes to mind and even there Staal was one of the best players in the league that season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Naturally, there are more factors to consider on hockey. It's a lot more luck-driven and context-driven than baseball. But that doesn't imply that you need to throw out what's there. Besides, like all stats, these are at their best when dealing with extremes, and how they are likely to regress to the mean, rather than trying to distinguish small differences between teams in the muddle of "average".

I don't agree with you at all. It's not luck driven, it's just not as statistically friendly as baseball is. And that's your problem. It doesn't fit into the nice neat little box that you want it to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Dallas is a beautiful example, because it got to the top of the Western conference riding the percentages, but with bad puck possession metrics. Their fall was swifter than anticipated, but it was predictable. Likewise Colorado this year relative to last.

The stats aren't as apt to make precise comparisons as baseball's, but when something sticks out like a sore thumb (and it happens in hockey more than in baseball) they will show it. And Montreal's shooting percentage sticks out like a sore thumb.

Our 2008 scoring sticks out like a sore thumb. Our shooting percentage wasn't great last year and it sucked this year. Is that a pattern or luck? I'd bet that if we had some great forwards in our lineup this would change. And even if the percentage didn't change, I'd be pretty sure that at the very least those superstars would manage to get more total shots on net to begin with.

Is it a fluke that Gomez's shooting percentage is always so low? No. It's not. Some players will be below the league average in shooting percentage because not all forwards are created equal and some just aren't very good at putting the puck in the net.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Montreal was one of the better clubs in the league at driving the play and generating chances at even-strength. That was NOT the case in the past. And in the long term that's the most sustainable way to get goals; 'shooting percentage' skill, at the team level, is a chimera.

It hasn't translated to results. Until we see consistent scoring from this team, it doesn't matter. We haven't seen this from our group in the past and I don't think we'll see it without some significant roster changes to the forwards. Then again, maybe PK Subban is the next Bobby Orr. That would help too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MathMan

Detroit had terrible 5-on-5 shooting percentage last year (close to as bad as Montreal's was this year) and were perfectly average this year. They don't have any special finishing skill; their continual excellence is built on puck possession.

All the teams that continually contend have strong puck possession numbers. None of them have consistently high shooting percentages (and no other team does either).

Puck possession is a good thing. Nobody would argue otherwise. Obviously you want to be in control of the game. But again, it is not the be all and end all of things and if you can't finish then you won't win.

Again you want to rely on shooting percentage or corsi? Good for you. At the end of the day though, it's not a surprise that Detroit had 50 more goals than we did. They had more shots hitting the net to begin with. Why? Because they are a better team than we are. They have two of the best forwards in the game as well as one of the best defensemen of all time on their roster. I'm pretty sure that makes a big difference in how successful they are.

If this thread was titled 'Are we a Pavel Datsyuk away from winning a cup' then maybe you'd have something to stand on. That guy is an actual superstar who makes a huge difference on the ice and we don't have a player who's close to his level of stardom... never mind Lidstrom or Zetterberg. But hey, who needs superstars to win right?

Something that may not have been made clear enough... when we say that shooting percentage regresses toward the means on the long time, it's not some random statement of belief. We're not saying "I feel it does" or "It should regress toward the means". The ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS conclusively show that it does. That's it. It's a factual statement. Take a look at the actual numbers, and it becomes very obvious, very quickly. This is not a matter of opinion; we're way past that.
Why do you feel this is "reality"? 'cause it feels like it is to you?

The world is not a math formula and just because your limited experience makes you believe it is, it still is not.

Skill, experience and motivation you will learn are what makes athletes better than one other and that makes teams better than each other.

The world is not a math formula and just because your limited experience makes you believe it is, it still is not.

Sentences like "the world is not a math formula" are meaningless. Plenty of things in the world follow mathematics. For example, if I flip a coin, it will comes down as head 50% of the time, and as tail 50%. This has nothing to do with our "limited experience", this is the result of many many many tries and always getting the same results on the average.

Likewise, and as Mathman mentioned many times in a better way than I could ever, shooting percentage vary wildly from teams to teams and over the years, and cannot be reproduced easily. This is not an opinion, this is the blunt results of the data we have. Just saying "no it's not" doesn't change anything with that.

Quote:

Skill, experience and motivation you will learn are what makes athletes better than one other and that makes teams better than each other.

And your point being?

Quote:

The naivety on this thread is mind boggling.

In this thread, I see mostly one guy who is way too far for 90% of the fanbase, and a few others who are so completely out of their league that their entire points resolve around arguments from ignorance.

In this thread, I see mostly one guy who is way too far for 90% of the fanbase, and a few others who are so completely out of their league that their entire points resolve around arguments from ignorance.

In this case the ignorance is coming from what I will loosely call "the halls of academia". Trying to fit life to a normal distribution curve or to a z-score will leave you confused and quite frankly embarrassed in time.

If you don't know the meaning of skill, experience and motivation you shouldn't leave your room.

So again, why do you want to compare us to the weakest teams to win? Why not try to build what an average cup winning team has instead?

That's my point... what is average? You're defining average on the basis of examples that may not fit the trend moving forward.

The salary cap has changed the playing field... the line between winning a cup and not winning a cup is getting thinner, not thicker.

Sure, there'll still be teams and seasons that might fit the traditional mold of a cup winner (winning through rebuilding, superstars etc..), but on the flip side, those teams will have a harder time to win year after year, and I think more teams that do not fit the conventional mold will win as well.

I think the Bruins represent pretty well what it takes to be a cup winner, a stud or two, depth, and a few solid young players.

It's important to note as well, that their Hall of Fame Norris superstar, was drafted by the Islanders.

Quote:

And sorry, but getting a center who plays 75 percent of what Gomez does isn't going to put us over either.

I meant 75 percent of Gomez's salary, which is 5.4 Mil. In other words, if we had a center with a 7.3 cap hit, who played at the value of a 5.4 Million dollar player, it's very possible that we'd be in the finals right now. And I'd wager money on that if we had a healthy Max too.

Quote:

But MaxPac isn't Steven Stamkos. And he's nowhere near the difference maker that this club needs to vault it into the same category as the top contending clubs.

To suggest that Max isn't a difference maker in my eyes is more speculative as saying he would be. I think he would have been enough to push us past the 1st round.

We'll see how he plays in October, but prior to his injury, he was most definitely a big part of this team.

The fact that he's young and unproven come playoff time holds less weight in todays NHL, that seems to favour younger guys anyways.

Quote:

But for us to win Price has to be Ken Dryden and while we can hope for this we shouldn't expect it.

Why not? I think if Price plays like Price, than we have no reason to rely on him being anyone else, other than Price.

Just as much as it takes the Flyers to lose with crappy goaltending, it takes the Flyers good goaltending to win as well. A team can win with good goaltending, and their chances are better with excellent goaltending.... it's a good thing we are closer to excellent goaltending with Price.

this club is much further away from contention than just a healthy MaxPac...

our defense is a ?, both quality and depth.

our secondary scoring is a ?

we have no consistent elite point producer/goal scorer up front (cammy's playoffs have been great but his regular seasons have been a bust)?

our coach has a tendency to be harder on young players and unconcerned with his role in their ability to perform right now (not as much of an issue when he was coaching the cap-free sens, but in a cap era, you need quality production from ELC players... Martin doesn't seem willing to acknowledge the importance of building up young players, prefering the old-school "tear them down" approach).

i'd say those 4 issues are standing btw us and having a serious contending team... we'll need to fix at least 2 of them if we want to succeed, making this summer and how PG handles our defense of the utmost importance.

that we have no high end offensive prospects anywhere near ready to contribute and that we are locked in with gomez/gionta/cammalleri for the next few seasons, scoring is bound to be an issue moving forward... with a goalie like Price and a coach like Martin, this issue can be overcome, but not without a much better defensive group/depth than we had this year.

That's my point... what is average? You're defining average on the basis of examples that may not fit the trend moving forward.

Again, most cup winning teams have a few HOF players on it. That's what makes them champions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

The salary cap has changed the playing field... the line between winning a cup and not winning a cup is getting thinner, not thicker.

Sure, there'll still be teams and seasons that might fit the traditional mold of a cup winner (winning through rebuilding, superstars etc..), but on the flip side, those teams will have a harder time to win year after year, and I think more teams that do not fit the conventional mold will win as well.

There will always be the exceptions to the rule. Nobody is claiming otherwise. Two points though...

1. Most will fit the traditional mold. I see no reason why that will change. It will just be harder to keep dynasties together.

2. Regardless of number one, we aren't good enough to win right now with the roster we have. With or without MaxPac.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

I think the Bruins represent pretty well what it takes to be a cup winner, a stud or two, depth, and a few solid young players.

It's important to note as well, that their Hall of Fame Norris superstar, was drafted by the Islanders.

Yes, and their other star player was not a top pick. They have Tyler Seguin who may be fantastic down the road as well as Rask. Those guys should be able to carry them forward as a rebuild.

But the team (that looks like it's going to win the cup) tonight is not a rebuild. But man, they sure have set themselves up nicely for the future. Too bad we didn't make a deal with the Leafs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

I meant 75 percent of Gomez's salary, which is 5.4 Mil. In other words, if we had a center with a 7.3 cap hit, who played at the value of a 5.4 Million dollar player, it's very possible that we'd be in the finals right now. And I'd wager money on that if we had a healthy Max too.

Okay, but again... we're relying on building our team via free agency then. And when you do this, you have to go with what's available and hope that they're willing to play for you. I'd much rather go the draft/prospect route because it seems to yield more success and our scouting is good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

To suggest that Max isn't a difference maker in my eyes is more speculative as saying he would be. I think he would have been enough to push us past the 1st round.

We'll see how he plays in October, but prior to his injury, he was most definitely a big part of this team.

The fact that he's young and unproven come playoff time holds less weight in todays NHL, that seems to favour younger guys anyways.

I think he's a good young player. Maybe he'll be great someday. But he's not enough of a difference maker right now to lead this club to a cup next season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by coolasprICE

Why not? I think if Price plays like Price, than we have no reason to rely on him being anyone else, other than Price.

Just as much as it takes the Flyers to lose with crappy goaltending, it takes the Flyers good goaltending to win as well. A team can win with good goaltending, and their chances are better with excellent goaltending.... it's a good thing we are closer to excellent goaltending with Price.

Yes, you can win with good but not great goaltending... IF you have a great team to balance it out. We don't have this. We aren't Chicago or Pittsburgh. We don't have the kinds of superstars that balance this out. If Price isn't spectacular, we probably don't even make the playoffs.

Our strength is goaltending and we have a mobile defense core that can score. But our forwards aren't good and we have a deficit on grit and size. Max Pac helps with all of those issues but he's not Eric Lindros. People talk about our secondary scoring being a problem... forget that. We don't even have consistent primary scoring. For this club to be a contender and seriously challenge for a cup we'd need a huge gamebreaking power forward to balance things out. If you think MaxPac is that guy, power to you. I see him as a talented kid who's probably going to produce something like 20-25 goals next year. And even that might be asking a lot from a sophmore kid. He's not proven yet. And to expect him to lead us to a cup just isn't realistic right now.

I think we gave the Bruins the toughest series. We were the only ones to put them down 2-0 in a series, winning both games in Boston at that. We came within a hair of eliminating them in game 7 of our series. I think habs fans should be proud of our team tonight. I can live to losing to the Stanley Cup champs...

I think we gave the Bruins the toughest series. We were the only ones to put them down 2-0 in a series, winning both games in Boston at that. We came within a hair of eliminating them in game 7 of our series. I think habs fans should be proud of our team tonight. I can live to losing to the Stanley Cup champs...

In retrospect, yeah. I still think we blew that series in game 4, but the Habs didn't quit in game 7 like the Canucks did. 4 goals in 5 games. Pathetic.

I think we gave the Bruins the toughest series. We were the only ones to put them down 2-0 in a series, winning both games in Boston at that. We came within a hair of eliminating them in game 7 of our series. I think habs fans should be proud of our team tonight. I can live to losing to the Stanley Cup champs...

vancouver says hi between chocking

and it's become tradition practically...every year who ever beats us goes on to the final or to win the cup except boston in 09

and it's become tradition practically...every year who ever beats us goes on to the final or to win the cup except boston in 09

Actually we choked worse than Vanc. we lost the ot games and we went HOME with the 2-0 lead. We need 2-3 Maxpacs,a Rupp,Torres nad 1-2 tough hard-nosed defensemen. Then we can win the cup.And a management capable of doing this

I think we gave the Bruins the toughest series. We were the only ones to put them down 2-0 in a series, winning both games in Boston at that.

Even though the Habs were better than the Bruins, the team that really exposed Boston was Tampa. They absolutely rolled them everywhere but the crease and Boston only managed to escape because Tampa's goaltending let them down badly.

Which is why I'm stunned Vancouver didn't do at least as well as Tampa. Methinks the West is a wee bit overrated. Of course, it was also yet another goaltending meltdown.

Again, most cup winning teams have a few HOF players on it. That's what makes them champions.

There will always be the exceptions to the rule. Nobody is claiming otherwise. Two points though...

1. Most will fit the traditional mold. I see no reason why that will change. It will just be harder to keep dynasties together.

2. Regardless of number one, we aren't good enough to win right now with the roster we have. With or without MaxPac.

Yes, and their other star player was not a top pick. They have Tyler Seguin who may be fantastic down the road as well as Rask. Those guys should be able to carry them forward as a rebuild.

But the team (that looks like it's going to win the cup) tonight is not a rebuild. But man, they sure have set themselves up nicely for the future. Too bad we didn't make a deal with the Leafs.

Okay, but again... we're relying on building our team via free agency then. And when you do this, you have to go with what's available and hope that they're willing to play for you. I'd much rather go the draft/prospect route because it seems to yield more success and our scouting is good.

I think he's a good young player. Maybe he'll be great someday. But he's not enough of a difference maker right now to lead this club to a cup next season.

Yes, you can win with good but not great goaltending... IF you have a great team to balance it out. We don't have this. We aren't Chicago or Pittsburgh. We don't have the kinds of superstars that balance this out. If Price isn't spectacular, we probably don't even make the playoffs.

Our strength is goaltending and we have a mobile defense core that can score. But our forwards aren't good and we have a deficit on grit and size. Max Pac helps with all of those issues but he's not Eric Lindros. People talk about our secondary scoring being a problem... forget that. We don't even have consistent primary scoring. For this club to be a contender and seriously challenge for a cup we'd need a huge gamebreaking power forward to balance things out. If you think MaxPac is that guy, power to you. I see him as a talented kid who's probably going to produce something like 20-25 goals next year. And even that might be asking a lot from a sophmore kid. He's not proven yet. And to expect him to lead us to a cup just isn't realistic right now.

I see what you mean and on many levels. I did in the past , and still do agree with you...

It goes without saying that the teams with best top end players win. But there are many factors that are evening-out the distribution of talent across 30 teams, via draft or acquisition.

Boston does have 2 potential HOF players as it seems, however, I don't see them as a dynasty. And I suspect that more and more teams will be modeled as such.

That's not to say that draft built teams like the Hawks or maybe eventually the Oilers won't emerge victorious.

In the end, I think the best approach comes down to balance ... quality scouting / drafting, good management (that knows when to buy or sell), and player dev. Too much concentration (or extreme strategy) on anyone of these categories may provide more harm (or delay) than benefit.

And Vancouver doesn't get blown away if Hamhuis isn't injured. Playing the "what if" game is pointless. Unless Max literally steps in during overtime in game seven. His presence could change the series for a positive or a negative. Maybe is victimized on a poor play and Boston scores on the powerplay, leading to motivate said powerplay moving forward. This is why you don't play these games. Frankly, on paper Boston was the better team and they proved that on the ice.

Even though the Habs were better than the Bruins, the team that really exposed Boston was Tampa. They absolutely rolled them everywhere but the crease and Boston only managed to escape because Tampa's goaltending let them down badly.

Which is why I'm stunned Vancouver didn't do at least as well as Tampa. Methinks the West is a wee bit overrated. Of course, it was also yet another goaltending meltdown.